People aged 65 or over
9.5%21 March 2021 · Manchester
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents
52,167 out of 551,937.
Source and method →Manchester · England
Community life
Manchester council area. Every figure carries its own date.
A place is more than its average house price. The census shows who lives here and some of the pressures households face.
People reporting bad or very bad health
6%21 March 2021 · Manchester
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All usual residents; self-reported, not age-standardised
32,978 out of 551,938.
Source and method →Households facing at least one measured disadvantage
56.4%21 March 2021 · Manchester
The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All households
121,196 out of 214,729.
Source and method →Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
23.6%21 March 2021 · Manchester
The census checks education, employment, health and housing. This is not a measure of income or poverty.
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
All households
50,672 out of 214,729.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with no qualifications
19.7%21 March 2021 · Manchester
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
86,110 out of 437,958.
Source and method →People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent
37.6%21 March 2021 · Manchester
Show the workings
Published Census 2021 count; percentage uses the matching population denominator
Residents aged 16 and over
164,763 out of 437,958.
Source and method →Different needs within the area
People reporting bad or very bad health
1.1% to 9%
People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 1.1% in Deansgate to 9% in Miles Platting & Newton Heath — a gap of 7.9 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 32 of 32 current wards with comparable figures.
Residents described their own health. Differences in age matter, so this is a prompt to investigate needs, not a score for local health services.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
| Ward | Share | Count | Population or households covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deansgate | 1.1% | 154 | 13,697 |
| Piccadilly | 2.1% | 245 | 11,663 |
| Didsbury West | 3.6% | 543 | 15,082 |
| Didsbury East | 3.8% | 563 | 14,709 |
| Chorlton | 3.8% | 494 | 12,843 |
| Hulme | 3.9% | 751 | 19,486 |
| Withington | 4% | 619 | 15,437 |
| Ancoats & Beswick | 4.4% | 646 | 14,821 |
| Rusholme | 4.9% | 848 | 17,436 |
| Moss Side | 4.9% | 1,038 | 21,275 |
| Fallowfield | 5% | 739 | 14,870 |
| Levenshulme | 5.3% | 1,042 | 19,647 |
| Ardwick | 5.5% | 1,151 | 21,042 |
| Old Moat | 5.6% | 854 | 15,364 |
| Cheetham | 5.6% | 1,195 | 21,474 |
| Whalley Range | 5.7% | 945 | 16,557 |
| Chorlton Park | 5.7% | 1,007 | 17,592 |
| Crumpsall | 5.9% | 1,069 | 18,196 |
| Longsight | 6.2% | 1,301 | 20,873 |
| Moston | 6.7% | 1,264 | 18,813 |
| Brooklands | 7.1% | 1,074 | 15,234 |
| Burnage | 7.1% | 1,306 | 18,506 |
| Northenden | 7.4% | 1,109 | 15,064 |
| Charlestown | 7.4% | 1,287 | 17,473 |
| Clayton & Openshaw | 7.7% | 1,546 | 20,028 |
| Gorton & Abbey Hey | 7.7% | 1,623 | 20,988 |
| Baguley | 7.8% | 1,248 | 16,066 |
| Harpurhey | 7.9% | 1,573 | 19,998 |
| Sharston | 8.1% | 1,416 | 17,446 |
| Higher Blackley | 8.2% | 1,281 | 15,569 |
| Woodhouse Park | 8.5% | 1,305 | 15,414 |
| Miles Platting & Newton Heath | 9% | 1,744 | 19,275 |
People aged 65 or over
1.8% to 15.6%
People aged 65 or over ranged from 1.8% in Deansgate to 15.6% in Brooklands — a gap of 13.8 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 32 of 32 current wards with comparable figures.
Age helps locate demand for accessible homes, transport and support. Being older does not itself mean someone needs care.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
| Ward | Share | Count | Population or households covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deansgate | 1.8% | 249 | 13,698 |
| Piccadilly | 2.5% | 297 | 11,663 |
| Hulme | 3.6% | 704 | 19,489 |
| Ardwick | 5.2% | 1,091 | 21,042 |
| Ancoats & Beswick | 5.7% | 847 | 14,822 |
| Fallowfield | 5.8% | 865 | 14,872 |
| Cheetham | 6% | 1,282 | 21,473 |
| Moss Side | 6.1% | 1,296 | 21,275 |
| Rusholme | 6.1% | 1,071 | 17,433 |
| Longsight | 7% | 1,463 | 20,873 |
| Levenshulme | 7.5% | 1,468 | 19,647 |
| Withington | 8.1% | 1,255 | 15,438 |
| Old Moat | 8.5% | 1,304 | 15,367 |
| Whalley Range | 8.6% | 1,430 | 16,556 |
| Harpurhey | 9.2% | 1,841 | 19,995 |
| Clayton & Openshaw | 9.3% | 1,858 | 20,030 |
| Crumpsall | 10.2% | 1,863 | 18,198 |
| Gorton & Abbey Hey | 10.5% | 2,202 | 20,988 |
| Didsbury West | 11.5% | 1,727 | 15,082 |
| Burnage | 11.7% | 2,174 | 18,505 |
| Miles Platting & Newton Heath | 11.8% | 2,267 | 19,275 |
| Chorlton Park | 12.1% | 2,127 | 17,593 |
| Baguley | 12.3% | 1,982 | 16,064 |
| Chorlton | 12.4% | 1,597 | 12,840 |
| Charlestown | 12.6% | 2,205 | 17,471 |
| Woodhouse Park | 13% | 2,005 | 15,418 |
| Northenden | 13.5% | 2,030 | 15,066 |
| Sharston | 13.5% | 2,352 | 17,446 |
| Higher Blackley | 13.5% | 2,109 | 15,569 |
| Moston | 13.9% | 2,606 | 18,811 |
| Didsbury East | 15.1% | 2,221 | 14,708 |
| Brooklands | 15.6% | 2,382 | 15,234 |
People aged 16+ with no qualifications
3.3% to 29.3%
People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 3.3% in Deansgate to 29.3% in Miles Platting & Newton Heath — a gap of 26.1 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 32 of 32 current wards with comparable figures.
Formal qualifications are only one part of someone's skills. Training decisions also need current vacancies, employment and residents' experience.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
| Ward | Share | Count | Population or households covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deansgate | 3.3% | 437 | 13,377 |
| Piccadilly | 5.2% | 593 | 11,378 |
| Didsbury West | 7% | 924 | 13,223 |
| Hulme | 9.3% | 1,609 | 17,267 |
| Chorlton | 9.3% | 1,004 | 10,760 |
| Withington | 9.4% | 1,295 | 13,721 |
| Didsbury East | 9.8% | 1,183 | 12,043 |
| Ancoats & Beswick | 13.3% | 1,733 | 13,010 |
| Old Moat | 13.4% | 1,760 | 13,118 |
| Fallowfield | 13.9% | 1,764 | 12,705 |
| Chorlton Park | 15.1% | 2,137 | 14,146 |
| Rusholme | 16.6% | 2,444 | 14,721 |
| Ardwick | 17.3% | 2,969 | 17,164 |
| Whalley Range | 17.3% | 2,288 | 13,201 |
| Brooklands | 20.9% | 2,518 | 12,045 |
| Moss Side | 22.2% | 3,520 | 15,874 |
| Northenden | 22.7% | 2,623 | 11,552 |
| Burnage | 22.7% | 3,198 | 14,068 |
| Levenshulme | 23% | 3,366 | 14,657 |
| Baguley | 24.3% | 3,008 | 12,387 |
| Moston | 24.6% | 3,519 | 14,312 |
| Cheetham | 25% | 3,958 | 15,848 |
| Charlestown | 25.2% | 3,326 | 13,202 |
| Sharston | 26.8% | 3,549 | 13,224 |
| Clayton & Openshaw | 27.1% | 4,007 | 14,763 |
| Crumpsall | 27.7% | 3,649 | 13,188 |
| Woodhouse Park | 27.8% | 3,312 | 11,920 |
| Higher Blackley | 28.1% | 3,340 | 11,905 |
| Gorton & Abbey Hey | 28.1% | 4,334 | 15,432 |
| Harpurhey | 28.7% | 4,134 | 14,395 |
| Longsight | 29.3% | 4,325 | 14,749 |
| Miles Platting & Newton Heath | 29.3% | 4,286 | 14,604 |
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages
5% to 32%
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 5% in Deansgate to 32% in Miles Platting & Newton Heath — a gap of 27 percentage points.
21 March 2021 · 32 of 32 current wards with comparable figures.
These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.
See each ward and the workings
These are separate ward percentages, not an average of them. Boundaries: May 2026. Missing or differently defined figures are excluded from this range and stay visible on the ward pages.
| Ward | Share | Count | Population or households covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deansgate | 5% | 316 | 6,278 |
| Piccadilly | 8.9% | 558 | 6,264 |
| Didsbury West | 9.4% | 695 | 7,433 |
| Didsbury East | 10.8% | 673 | 6,227 |
| Chorlton | 11.5% | 655 | 5,680 |
| Ancoats & Beswick | 14.4% | 1,077 | 7,466 |
| Hulme | 17.6% | 1,390 | 7,879 |
| Withington | 19.4% | 1,074 | 5,538 |
| Chorlton Park | 19.5% | 1,388 | 7,101 |
| Whalley Range | 21.4% | 1,417 | 6,619 |
| Brooklands | 22.3% | 1,515 | 6,795 |
| Old Moat | 23.2% | 1,336 | 5,757 |
| Moston | 24.8% | 1,850 | 7,456 |
| Cheetham | 25.9% | 1,804 | 6,952 |
| Levenshulme | 26% | 1,882 | 7,234 |
| Northenden | 26.2% | 1,593 | 6,072 |
| Rusholme | 26.5% | 1,268 | 4,787 |
| Burnage | 26.5% | 1,732 | 6,524 |
| Ardwick | 27.6% | 1,862 | 6,739 |
| Fallowfield | 27.8% | 1,198 | 4,312 |
| Baguley | 28% | 1,887 | 6,745 |
| Charlestown | 28.3% | 1,986 | 7,030 |
| Moss Side | 28.5% | 2,072 | 7,269 |
| Sharston | 28.6% | 2,034 | 7,105 |
| Higher Blackley | 28.6% | 1,833 | 6,400 |
| Crumpsall | 28.6% | 1,725 | 6,022 |
| Clayton & Openshaw | 29% | 2,232 | 7,708 |
| Gorton & Abbey Hey | 30.1% | 2,511 | 8,353 |
| Harpurhey | 30.7% | 2,426 | 7,894 |
| Woodhouse Park | 31.2% | 2,027 | 6,496 |
| Longsight | 31.8% | 2,059 | 6,473 |
| Miles Platting & Newton Heath | 32% | 2,604 | 8,131 |
Local places and initiatives
Holt Town, between Ancoats and the Etihad Campus
Holt Town neighbourhood
A proposed neighbourhood would add homes, workspaces, green routes and local services between the city’s eastern neighbourhoods and Sportcity.
Neighbourhood framework published; phased delivery ahead · source does not state a status date
Responsible body: Manchester City Council and development partners
Latest evidence: The council describes a framework guiding investment over 10 to 20 years, including housing, river and canal spaces, a play route and services. Its proposed totals are ambitions, not completed development.
Next thing to establish: What dated decision or progress report confirms the current stage?
Progress, funding and source
- Cost
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Funding
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Area covered
- Unmapped: a verified current ward boundary or council ward statement is still needed.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
- Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
- Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
- What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?
Make room for homes people can afford →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Strangeways and adjoining Salford land
Strangeways and Cambridge regeneration framework
The plan combines support for existing businesses with new homes, better walking routes and a proposed shared park.
Regeneration framework approved · source does not state a status date
Responsible body: Manchester City Council and Salford City Council
Latest evidence: The council confirms its Executive approved the framework as a guide to development. Copper Park and possible reuse of prison land are future proposals; prison relocation is not confirmed.
Next thing to establish: What dated decision or progress report confirms the current stage?
Progress, funding and source
- Cost
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Funding
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Area covered
- Unmapped: a verified current ward boundary or council ward statement is still needed.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
- Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
- Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
- What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?
Give existing businesses a clear place in Strangeways renewal →
Make room for homes people can afford →
Connect local skills to local opportunities →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →Smaller council-owned sites across Manchester
Project 500: affordable homes on smaller sites
Smaller council-owned sites can add affordable homes alongside Manchester’s large regeneration schemes. The January update separates completed homes from sites still awaiting building work.
51 first-phase homes complete at the January 2026 update; further phases planned · evidence dated 2026-01-14
Responsible body: Manchester City Council and Manchester Housing Provider Partnership
Latest evidence: The council describes 517 planned affordable homes across 35 sites. Of 357 first-phase homes, 51 were completed; the rest were on site or had permission. The second phase comprised 160 homes. These January stages are not a claim that the later timetable has been met.
Next thing to establish: What is the approved cost, including ongoing maintenance?
Progress, funding and source
- Cost
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Funding
- Not established by the evidence checked.
- Area covered
- No verified current ward footprint is assigned. The named location or council-wide remit does not establish benefits in every ward.
No verified ward footprint is assigned.
Project 500: affordable homes on smaller sites →
Source checked 2026-10-17. A plan or announcement is not proof of completion.
Questions for the next progress report
- Which funding is committed, and what remains conditional?
- Which neighbourhoods are covered by an official project plan, and which benefits still need testing?
- What is the next published milestone, and what evidence will show residents benefit?
Track small-site homes through to occupation →
Make room for homes people can afford →
Target support where disadvantages overlap →
How to track delivery →